The common ancestor of all vertebrates may be more complex than previously thought.

Therefore Jebus.

The irony of course being that the expressed surprise is how a real scientist behaves (bolding mine):

Quote

"I was staggered by this paper," said Philippe Janvier, a paleontologist at the Musťum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France, and a long time supporter of the idea that lampreys were more closely related to jawed vertebrates. "It's very hard for me to recognize that I've been wrong in my assumption," said Janvier, who did not participate in the research, but this paper provides "very, very strong support for the monophyly -- the common origin of lampreys and hagfishes apart from the origin of the jawed vertebrates."

And one of the co-authors was also surprised, because he too started out believing the opposite of what the new molecular data was saying. His response? †Go back to the morphological data and re-analyze it. †All of it. Turns out it didn't support his previously held position.†But I'm sure it was just religiously motivated and nothing to do with intellectual honesty or anything ridiculous like that.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

Apparently, I was wrong.

--------------Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.Member AMF, Angelic Motive ForcePushing planets on celestial spheres ‚ÄĒ one epoch at a time.

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"

† †"To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments " † †=====

† †Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it. You obviously knew what I meant , but predictably skirted around the edges of true rational logic using a "What Is Truth?" arguement about what is "immaterial thought". The problem continues to be your problem with the experiemnt and that is the point. † †-----

† †Bille Bigge:

† †"(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)" † †=====

† †Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff. Bill, first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get. † †*eyes rolling* † †-----

† †Bill Bigge:

† †"I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works." † †=====

† †Really. Science is about physical and naturalistic proofs. You have done neither and neither has the Darwin gang without telling predictable myths and fables found only in a parallel universe of some online gaming site. † †-----

† †Bill Bigge:

† †"You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?" † †=====

† †Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill. We are talking about LIFE Bill, not some unilateral agenda to appease atheists so they'll promise to be your friend. The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year. Once again you are proving this is more about religious faith, than science. Thanks for illustrating that for us.

Look quickly, because it probably won't last long. Normally, a tardicle can't be found in this state, but as with quintessence, disappears as soon as you look at it. With this phenomenal find, perhaps we can finally answer the question, what is the half-life of a tardicle?

Quote

Derick Childress: Super, Neal. Glad that's finally over with. Now that you've actually presented what you think is a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, we get to the fun part: Determining if you're right.

Congratulations to Derick Childress, and a special thanks to Neal Tedford, who, absent his providing a constant stream of tardicles for study, this discovery may never have occurred.

--------------Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.Member AMF, Angelic Motive ForcePushing planets on celestial spheres ‚ÄĒ one epoch at a time.

Hunter: There is evidence in favor of evolution and common descent, but the fact is there are substantial scientific problems with evolution and common descent.

me: Let's see what those scientific problems are. What are your specific objections to common descent?

Hunter: Well it depends on what you mean by common descent. Even many IDs and creationists accept certain types of common descent, but I suspect you don't mean that. If you mean common descent via evolution, then you could look at the many failed predictions.

me: Umm, common descent is common descent. You know, the tree of life. DO you accept it or not? That isn't a trick question, unless you want to make it so.

Hunter: OK, the tree of life. That has been falsified many times over. There are mismatches at all levels. Only a precommittment to CD could overlook these many contradictions.

Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.

Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent. †

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:

Quote

Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know. †Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.

Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent. †

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this: †

Quote

Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know. †Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.

I confess a tendency to wax Vancian (if not Shakespearean) when I am not pressed for time in responding to the incoherent inanities that result from these persons of prodigious ignorance. My goal is to one day present a blow so cunningly disguised as to seem a pleasantry to the recipient but boldly recognizable by all onlookers for a harsh ego-lacerating stroke of the virtual pen.

Alas, I shall never in all likelihood achieve this, as it takes so very little to tempt me to go all JoeyKris on persons of this sort.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Waterloo!!!!!

--------------Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Waterloo!!!!!

I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode. †First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica). †Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted. †After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.

As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Waterloo!!!!!

I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode. †First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica). †Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted. †After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.

Maybe they already did it, and the final filming is set for 2012? If the Mythbusters crew gets into a spaceship, we'll know we're in for it! The reapture is when the mythbusters fans get taken up into the space ark before they push the handle and blow up the planet! It's all so clear!

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G